My email chat with Anwar al-Awlaki (before he was assassinated, of course)
I kept asking the key question about Islam, Israel, and the Jews, and eventually, he gave me an honest answer. It's a frightening answer, too, but it's a good place to start.
In the days after September 11, 2001, my colleagues at National Geographic magazine (NGM) were scrambling to figure out how we might help our readers understand this insane new world we seemed to be entering.
Among the questions we grappled with: What is Al Qaeda? What is Islam? What is Islamism? What exactly do Muslims believe? What is Wahhabism? “Why do they hate us?” And, more generally: What the hell is going on?
In our search for answers, NGM’s area specialist for the Middle East reached out to Anwar al-Awlaki, who was then the imam of the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia. Al-Awlaki graciously agreed to make the short drive into DC to join a panel of experts for a presentation and discussion in the National Geographic Society’s staff auditorium.
First, though, a brief biographical sketch:
Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki (Arabic: أنور العولقي, romanized: Anwar al-'Awlaqī; April 21 or 22, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American-Yemeni lecturer assassinated in Yemen in 2011 by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki was the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and assassinated by a U.S. government drone strike. U.S. government officials alleged that al-Awlaki was a key organizer for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.
Al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in 1971 to parents from Yemen. Growing up partly in the United States and partly in Yemen, he attended various U.S. universities in the 1990s and early 2000s. He also worked as an imam [at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia] despite having no religious qualifications and almost no religious education. Al-Awlaki returned to Yemen in early 2004 and became a university lecturer after a brief stint as a public speaker in the United Kingdom. He was detained by Yemeni authorities in 2006 and spent 18 months in prison before being released without facing trial.
Following his release from Yemeni custody, Al-Awlaki had significantly radicalized, and began to speak overtly in support of violence, also condemning the U.S. government’s foreign policy towards Muslims. … U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of “regional commander” within al-Qaeda. He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States. In April 2010, al-Awlaki was placed on a CIA kill list by President Barack Obama. … The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him, firing at and failing to kill him at least once. Al-Awlaki was killed on September 30, 2011.
“Any questions for our experts?”
Ten years before that targeted assassination in Yemen, al-Awlaki was sitting twenty feet from me in the staff auditorium at National Geographic’s headquarters. I don’t remember who else was on that expert panel, but I do remember Anwar because during the Q&A I asked him what seemed like a straightforward question:
When pious Muslims view the world and human history through the lens of the Koran, do they see the very existence of the nation-state of Israel within ANY borders (the current borders, the pre-1967 ones, or even the 1947 ones) to be contrary to the will of Allah?
Or, put another way: Is Jewish national sovereignty compatible with Islamic thought? If so, what Muslim RELIGIOUS leaders in the Middle East have spoken forcefully and publicly in support of a Jewish nation-state of ANY size in and around Jerusalem?
His answer confused me, so the next day, one of NGM’s editors gave me al-Awlaki’s phone number, which led to the following email exchange1. (All spelling and punctuation errors are in the original.)
09/28/2001 02:47 PM
To: Anwar Al-Awlaki <al_aulaqi@yahoo.com>
From: Alan Mairson <amairson@ngs.org>
Subject: a question from National GeographicDear Sheikh Al-Awlaki,
Thank you for your phone call — and for agreeing to answer a question:
When pious Muslims view the world and human history through the lens of the Koran, do they see the very existence of the nation-state of Israel within ANY borders (the current borders, the pre-1967 ones, or even the 1947 ones) to be contrary to the will of Allah?
(Please know I’m NOT asking about which national borders between Israelis and Palestinians would provide a reasonable POLITICAL compromise; instead, I’m asking about the theological meaning and historic challenge posed to Islam by the existence of a Jewish nation-state.)
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Alan Mairson
Senior Editorial Staff
National Geographic Magazine
1145 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone: 202-775-6130
fax: 202-429-5767
email: amairson@ngs.org
09/29/2001 08:16 AM
To: Alan Mairson
From: Anwar Al-Awlaki
Subject: Re: a question from National GeographicDear Alan:
For the student of the Quran, only the city of Jerusalem carries religious significance. Specifically the Mosque and the surrounding area. This is a land that pious Muslims would never give up. The argument for the rest of the nation is not based on any Quranic verdict. It is purely on the grounds that this land belonged to Muslims and was taken away from them by force. So it is an issue of rights and not religion. The Quran does not contain any promise of the land of Palestine nor does it instruct Muslims to specificaly take it over. So from a “theological” point of view based on Quran Jerusalem is sacred.
Now why is Jerusalem signifincant for Muslims? The Quran presents the message of Muhammad not as a new religion but as a continuation of the true religion of God preached by all the prophets of the past. The word Muslim means “to submit.” All the prophets of the past are Muslim because they all submitted to God. The Quran teaches that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Jesus and all the other prophets taught the same exact message. The Quran also teaches that today the only true followers of the prophets are specifically of the Quran because it is the only scripture of God that remains intact and free from human interference.
This would make the Muslims the “inheritors” of the prophets of the past.
Now since Jerusalem was the holy land of the prophets of Israel and was the land of worship it has became holy and sacred to the Muslims.
I hope this helps answering your question.
Sincerely,
Anwar Al Awlaki
09/30/2001 09:29 AM
To: Anwar Al-Awlaki
From: Alan Mairson
Subject: Re: a question from National GeographicDear Sheikh Al-Awlaki,
Thank you for your note.
I understand why Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims. But I’m still confused on a number of other points:
On the one hand you write that “only the city of Jerusalem carries religious significance.” But then you write that “Jerusalem was the holy land of the prophets of Israel and was the land of worship it has became holy and sacred to the Muslims.” My confusion arises because the land that was “holy” to the prophets wasn’t simply the acre or two surrounding the Temple — it was the “land of Israel” in its entirety. We need not debate exactly where those borders were or ought to be, but I think we can agree it was a sizable chunk of real estate — much bigger than just the Old City of Jerusalem. Would you clarify why you’ve so tightly circumscribed the area of Islamic concern to be “the Mosque and the surrounding area”?
You say the “argument for the rest of the nation is not based on any Quranic verdict. It is purely on the grounds that this land belonged to Muslims and was taken away from them by force. So it is an issue of rights and not religion. The Quran does not contain any promise of the land of Palestine nor does it instruct Muslims to specificaly take it over.”
I understand the Quran doesn’t call on Muslims to take over Palestine “specifically.” But doesn’t the Quran clearly instruct Muslims to defend land “taken away from them by force”? In other words: Is there a Quranic justification to wage war against Israel to defend land that was “taken away from them by force”? From a Muslim perspective, exactly how much of the land was “taken away from them by force”?And lastly, may I rephrase my original question?
Since the modern nation-state of Israel occupies land that was once Islamic, is Israel’s very existence within ANY borders (the current borders, the pre-1967 ones, or even the 1947 ones) contrary to the will of Allah OR contrary to the “rights” accorded to Muslims in the Quran?
Thank you so much for your patience — and your guidance. And I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Alan Mairson
10/03/01 12:36 AM
To: Alan Mairson
From: Anwar Al-Awlaki
Re: a question from National GeographicI am sorry Alan. I did receive your email. I just didn’t get a chance to respond back.
In response to your first point: You are basing that on the Bible. But the Quran actually says “the Mosque and its surroundings” which has been interpreted as referring to Jerusalem. Now I say interpreted because the Quran did not spell out clearly what constitutes the holy land. There are Muslim scholars however who say that the holy land encompasses Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan all together. The difference of opinion is because the verse says “...and its surroundings.” So the common denominator among commentators of the Quran is the city of Jerusalem. The holiness of everything else is arguable.
The answer to your second question is yes. However that would apply to land taken by force and not land that was purchased. All of the West bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. You would find some disagreement on the rest with the religious more inclined to claim the whole thing. (You might wonder: well what about land that was purchased? Their answer would be it is perfectly legal Islamiclly for a Jew to own land and be a citizen of a Muslim state, so the issue is not land ownership but land soveirgnty).
Well Muslims do not believe that anything that happens is contrary to the will of Allah. To answer the second part of the question I would say that within religious circles the very existance of the state of Israel is viewed as problematic to say the least. [bold emphasis added] But I would also like to say that this issue could be debated with more flexibility if a more encouraging environment existed. But with the abuses of the state of Israel towards Palestinian increasing by the day, the mere inclination towards a more flexible position towards Israel is attacked as being unislamic and unpatriotic. Now remeber that I am describing the religious view regarding the state of Israel and not the Jews. It is an established position that the Jews have the right to live not only in Israel but in any part of the Muslim world and to enjoy the rights of citizenship of the Muslim state without any threat to their religion, life, and property.
For all the above points I am refering to what I see as the dominant sentament among Islamists.
10/04/2001 10:18 AM
To: Anwar Al-Awlaki
From: Alan Mairson
Subject: one last clarificationDear Sheikh Al-Awlaki,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. May I bother you for two further clarifications?
You said that the Quran clearly permits Muslims to wage war against Israel to recapture land that was “taken away by force.” You then define these lands as “the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem” — the areas captured during the 1967 war. But what about the land that was captured during the 1948 war, land the U.N. partition plan had designated to be a future Palestinian state? This land too was taken “by force,” was it not? Are Muslims justified in fighting to regain that land, too? Why or why not?
You say “it is an established position that the Jews have the right to live not only in Israel but in any part of the Muslim world and to enjoy the rights of citizenship of the Muslim state without any threat to their religion, life, and property.” Clearly, the entire Zionist project is dedicated to the idea that Jews should enjoy their own sovereignty and not forever live as “dhimmis” in a Moslem state, or minorities in a Christian one. Is Jewish national sovereignty compatible with Islamic thought? If so, what Muslim RELIGIOUS leaders in the Middle East have spoken forcefully and publically in support of a Jewish nation-state of ANY size?
Thanks again for your help.
Sincerely,
Alan
10/04/2001 11:53 AM
To: Alan Mairson
From: Anwar Al-Awlaki
Subject: Re: one last clarificationDear Alan:
When it comes to the issue of Palestine even though Muslims all over the world care about it but it is the Muslim religious leaders from Palestine who will set the tone. There is an important rule in Islamic law which allows the jurist to derive a ruling based on what is the best option for the people or what will benifit them. If there is a fair and just settlement that would return all of the land captured after 67 that could be an acceptable comprimise with some leaders. However, there will always be calls for the return of Muslim soveirgnty over the whole of the land of Palestine based on the fact that they have the right to claim it.
Islam does not have a problem whatsoever whith a Jewish soveirgn state - as long as it is not on Muslim land. [emphasis added]
Anwar
The mother of all NIMBYs
So, to sum up the world according to Anwar al-Awlaki and his brethren:
Jews are welcome to live as Jews under Muslim rule.
Jews are welcome to have their own nation-state, but not in their ancestral homeland, which is, now and forever, Islamic property.
The entire Zionist project as currently constructed totally screws up Islam’s vision of itself. The existence of the modern nation-state of Israel provokes an identity crisis within Islam. (The existence of, say, Iceland, Brazil, and Australia pose no problem at all because those nations have not yet accepted, or submitted to, Islam’s version of the ‘Good News.’)
Put another way: We Muslims have a Story we’re telling ourselves, and it goes something like this:
Chapter I: Allah chooses the Jews, but they behave badly and screw up everything. “I’m not mad,” Allah says. “Just disappointed.”
Chapter II: Allah sends Christ to clean up the Jewish mess AND redeem rest of the world, but the Christians also behave badly and screw up everything. «sigh»
Chapter III: Running out of options, Allah summons Mohammed, who does a fantastic job channeling the Even Newer & Much Improved Testament and, whaddaya know, he finally gets everything perfectly right. In the Koran, which is Allah’s final message to mankind and the new Divine rulebook, we learn that once Muslims conquer certain lands, they belong to Islam, forever. No backsies. No do-overs. No mulligans. As a result, the Jews returning to their so-called “Promised Land” after 2,000 years of exile was and is a deadly mistake and a profound misunderstanding and rejection of the Divine plan.
“What about Jewish claims to their ancestral homeland?” you ask. Allah doesn’t care and neither do we Muslims. Allah gave up on the Jews ages ago (didn’t they get the memo?) because the Jews gave up on Allah. Our Story has superseded the Jewish Story AND the Christian Story. Those earlier Covenants expired centuries ago. They’re finished. Done. Kaput. Islam is the Final Word from the Creator of the Universe, and we — the nation and people of Islam — carry His final message to all of humanity. (Included in that message: ‘Do not f**k with us.’)
Here’s the bottom line, Story-wise: Either the nation-state of Israel remains standing, which totally screws up our history, our identity, our supersessionist theology, and our narrative source of Hope. OR the nation-state of Israel is eliminated so our Story can get back on track and continue expanding gloriously towards the day of redemption and universal submission.
For us Muslims, for whom Islam means submission, it’s an easy choice.
And by the way: When you Westerners take to the streets and shout “Free Free Palestine! From the river to the sea! Globalize the Intifada!” — well, you’re singing our song.
“That’s our Story and we’re sticking to it.”
What’s a possible alternative to (narrative) supersessionism?
I have an idea. It’s a rather unformed idea. Half-baked. Maybe it’s idiotic. I really don’t know. Right now, it’s just a hint of a shadow of a thread of a solution, and it has two steps.
First, watch this short video (below). It will give you a musical outline of the dynamic I’m dreaming about. (It will also make you smile.)
Then, if you want to know how ‘Ode to Joy’ relates to religious (and narrative) supersessionism, please take a peek at this:
Imagine a narrative flash mob...
Regular readers of this Substack know I’m a bit obsessed with supersessionism:
Downside: Anwar al-Awlaki was a murderous Islamist who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Upside: He responded to my emails in a timely and comprehensive manner. 🙃
Thank you very very much for this insightful article.
Great article Alan. I've referenced it in my own here (at the bottom):
https://danielclarkeserret.substack.com/p/make-the-ummah-great-again?r=2bk821